FLOOD07020

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for Colorado
• Date: 2/1/1998
• Prepared For: CWCB
• Prepared By: Kistner and Associates
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration

199' . CoJom/o FIotJd Haard Mitigation Pllln (409)
Watershed Management ~' I Watershed Management I

e

WM-4 Floodplain, wetland and habitat resources have
been degraded and destroyed in Colorado in-
crementally over decades.

BACKGROUND:

Colorado has experienced tremendous growth in the
past 10 years. It is estimated that 50 percent of the
state's wetlands nave been lost over the past 100
years. Population growth, increased urbanization and
intensified agricultural use have put add~ional pres-
sure on wetlands. Benefits that may be achieved by
wetlands include flood control, groundwater recharge,
improved water quality, wildlife habitat and open
space. Beyond wetland initiatives, opportun~ies exist
to develop watershed management planning and im-
plementation strategies. The need for watershed plan,.
ning has been typified by some of the problems
experienced due to recent flooding. The problems
include damaged irrigation facilities, loss of riparian
areas, wetland lass and degradation, sedimentation of
rivers, streams, d~ches, and other watercourses.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

e

. Promote watershed planning throughout Colorado.

. Encourage increased federal, state and local gov-
emment participation in the Colorado Wetlands
Initiative.
. Provide buffer areas adjacent to creeks and rivers
to protect flow conveyance areas.
. Clean debris from d~ches and fields.

. Make repairs to damaged irrigation facil~ies.

. Improve vegetative growth in areas subject to
frequent flood flows.

. Coordinate watershed planning recommendations
with proposed mitigation measures.

LEAD AGENCIES:
Local jurisdictions, CWCB, CDOW, USDAlFSA,
USDAJNRCS,USF&WS,EPA

FUNDING:
FEMA, USDAJNRCS, USDAlFSA, CDOW

SCHEDULE: Immediate and 'on-going

STATUS:

I'

.

WMoS Need for combining structural and non-
structural elements to reduce flood hazards in
floodplains that have already been urbanized.

BACKGROUND:

Much of the most severe flood damage experienced in
this 1997 disaster occurred in watersheds where
houses and other buildings cover much of the 100-
year floodplain, including all or a significant part of the
channelJflow path. If acquisition for demolition or reio-
cation is feasible (economically, socially or politically)
for only a small number of buildings and if fIoodproof-
ing is similarly constrained, that does not mean other
sound floodplain management altematives dont exist
In such cases a combination of acquisition/relocation
and f100dproofing with structural drainagelflood control
improvements can reduce flood hazards and provide
open space and recreation, improve wildlife habitat
and increase livability of neighborhoods.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

. Identify communities flooded in 1997 and other
communities where urbanization appears to pre-
clude fully non-structural approaches to flood haz-
ard reduction;

. Identify non-structural measures that would con,.
tribute to flood hazard reduction in those communi-
ties and the constraints faced by the non-structural
measures.

. Identify structural measures that would substan-
tially enhance the effectiveness of non-structural
measures in those communities.

. Seek multi-<lbjective and multidiscipline design
support for such combined structural non-
structural projects.

. Seek funding (federal, state, local and private for
final design and construction of such projects).

LEAD AGENCIES:

CWCB, DOlA, local jurisdictions, private planning
consultants, private landscape archttects, private con-
sulting engineers, FEMA, COE, NRCS

FUNDING:

FEMA, COE, NRCS, cweB, DOLA, local jurisdic-
tions, special districts

SCHEDULE: One to 10 years

STATUS:

RIe: FHJIP.CMpItr-f."""

CklfJter" . 5

1_ .;38:32 PIt